Notgames Forum

I was enjoying Assassin's Creed 2. Its linearity is a clear testament to horrid lazy design. But I tolerated it because the things they made me do to get to the next part of the game were easy enough. Until now. Some stupid capture the flag thing. Tried it a few times. Failed. Quit playing. Not jut this game. But all games. It's over. I'm not letting them abuse me like that anymore.

This also ends the Treasures series on the notgames blog in which I play AAA games and talk about something good I find in them. I had already started a post about Assassin's Creed 2. About virtual tourism. But I'm not going to finish it. It don't want to publish anything positive about this game.

Maybe in another 10 years I'll try playing a game again.

Does anyone want a second hand Playstation 3?

Now, now. Being a martyr never helped anyone.

Try doing something constructive instead. Why not create a review system where these things can be rated, so people can help each other avoid games that make these mistakes?

Cause not all games do.

Actually it has! All martyrs go to heaven. 


Name one.

NiGHTS into dreams

Ever since I saw the amazing images of Florence and Venice in Assassins Creed 2 I have thought that maybe, maybe I should give it a try (at a friends house). Ever since I was there with my family I have soo wanted to walk those small streets filled with masked people during some fantastic carnival. And so much work the developer must have put into building it, just to ruin it all again. Sad.

I sure wouldn't mind a PS3.

I agree with the sentiment. I think the world built up in Assasin's Creed is really amazing but I just can't stand the game. To me, it seems a bit counterproductive to build such a vivid world just to make the player kill it. (Sure, you're meant to be an assasin and at that time there were quite a few political murders, etc. but it seems like everyone in the whole city hires you to do all their dirty work.)

After turning off the display of blood, it became easier to play a murderer. I only tolerated the gameplay because I wanted to explore these beautiful places (as Erik correctly observed). And I got a lot further than in the first Assassin's Creed. There was continuously this feeling that at some point, the ride was going to end because one of these challenges would be too difficult (read: badly designed). I took longer than I had expected. So maybe I was enjoying myself too much. Hence my extreme reaction to the game finally closing on me.

I don't understand such a design decision. They pour millions and years of the lives of dozens of people into the creation of these worlds and characters and then they let the entire experience hinge on a single poorly designed game element. Assassin's Creed 2 is completely linear. And to unlock new places, you must do missions. One after the other. Each of these missions needs to be completed successfully. Or you cannot continue. It's statistically impossible that all of these missions are tuned so perfectly that every player can make it through in one or two tries. And yet the creators of Assassin's Creed 2 are willing to gamble their entire immense production on this extremely unlikely assumption.

As if they never heard that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

Michaël: What would you want to change in that game, without changing the basic setting, gameplay mechanics, story etc?

On average, I wonder how many percent of the people who buy those big budget games actually finish them... 10? 15? I mean it is quite a big project most of the time, even if it weren't for those close to impossible segments... hm.

That's easy: add "skip" functionality to each gameplay bit.

I published the article about Assassin's Creed 2 anyway. Because I think the message is more important than my own experience with this particular game.

Thanks to the help of other frustrated players on the internet, I also found a way to complete the mission that ruined the game for me. I started playing again, reluctantly, carefully, afraid of more potential design disasters I may encounter.

I suspect that is why so many people (myself included) love Valve games. They seem to "get it." Their games are so well designed and polished and tend not to suffer from those gameplay bottlenecks.

Unlike many of you, I'm not reacting to games and gameplay. I don't dislike AAA games because they are games or AAA. It is simply that few of them capture my interest or make me want to shell out $60+ dollars for one (even when I have it to spend). Additionally, I don't have a problem with violence in games. In fact, I believe violence in games is a good thing and a great way to vent frustration and relieve that sort of stress. So running around in a beautifully design game world and shooting, hack 'n' slashing and blowing shit up can be fun. However, there's so much of that in games, there needs to be more variety. There needs to be other experiences. Interactive (not)game technologies have the potential for so much more.

I don't finish a lot of games. Most of them really. The last game I felt compelled to complete was Mass Effect as I loved the story - it reminded me of sci-fi books I read when I was a kid. I used to think I was missing out if I didn't finish a game, now days I don't worry about it. I like the experience of discovering a new world. Hanging around in it too long gets boring.

Nintendo are working on it/have some games that do.

Really? It took me all of 5 minutes (after the intro cut scenes) to get stuck in Half Life 2 Episode One because of a jump I couldn't make!... 

That is the saddest gaming related thing I've ever heard.

Actually ive heard the same from one of my friend. He couldnt get out of the pit in the beginning so he stoped playing the game. Why is games like that?